If this phrase means to pass through the world imperceptibly, without criteria and without the courage to think, that is, “to get into the thick of things”, not caring about the nonsense of public life and the irrationality of private life, I will not use it. even fertilize the soil in my garden Let’s cross this topic out of our vocabulary. But if this address of everyday life is being used to counter the idealistic “philosophers”, count me in. No one better than ordinary people questioned the strange things that these characters say. I would say something else about philosophers without adjectives. They are real skeptics. They know that the real is not exhausted by the concept. The naked philosopher will never accept the deceit of modernity: he will never confuse the order of the ideal with Ordo Rerum.
Thinking lives. Appeal to experience, to the whole history, to life is the basis of his thought. To those who think superior the withered logic of a dead university, or refuting the language of political bodok, or simply laughing at class academics, we like the expression “philosophical attitude to life.” makes us happy neglect happy to call him a fool or a fool in the hood, whom he considers right because of his “authority” or, even worse, because of the power he has been given by a “politician” or another even more stupid than him. Philosophers without adjectives cannot fix this: they treat life philosophically. They are stupid, unfair and idealistic troublemakers. They think upstream, move from one discipline to another and mix them up. They never sing of the “greatness” of purity. They stubbornly violate the order of knowledge, imposed by unjust legislation and shackled by the authorities.
A philosophical attitude to life can mean nothing but a natural acceptance of the life of thought. Yes, rationality, if it exists, before “philosophy”, “art”, “science” or any other kind of wisdom is way to feel and to try to make humanity in general and individuals in particular happier and freer. Authority, as Don Marcelino said, remains with other areas: in philosophy, no one owns, except personally what he has investigated and recognized in his conscience. A philosophical attitude to life is a way of life. You always think again and usually against the current, because thinking is detailed or it is not thinking, but be careful that the context, the situation, does not swallow us up. How to overcome the situation? This is the main question, because without universality, or at least without a claim to universality, there is no philosophy. I think I know, having thought about it a thousand times, that is, willing to think that the key issue in my thinking, in fact in my life, is the desire to think.
I want to think, and this is serious, not having great skills for this task. I want to fight, but I’m scared to death. (Do you know any bullfighter without funk?). The main thing is to be able to manage it. Transform the fear of death with beautiful movements for the respectable. Ephemeral art. But great. Something similar happens with philosophy. Nobody thinks with extraordinary abilities. In that we all follow Plato: a person is characterized not by his wisdom or his mental abilities, but, on the contrary, yes, by the fact that he is a helpless, corrupted and limited type. It is impossible to know, to know without taking into account this limitation. We have to carry our formidable insecurity with our hands and in tension. Plato is still great. What matters is how to turn weaknesses into abilities. This is the minimum level of knowledge. And if we do get lost, the matter will be resolved, like almost everything with work. There is no philosophical, literary, artistic, scientific or any other way of knowing that would resist work. To effort. The ultimate support for any valuable work lies in personal sacrifice. This is life with philosophy.